July 02, 2005
I read a LOT of editorial writers. The Opinion Page is my favorite part of any newspaper. Some of the writers (James Lileks, for example) always give me a chuckle or two when I read them. Some (Ann Coulter, for example) make me laugh out loud with the bodaciousness of their words.
SOME, on the other hand, just make me want to puke. Does ANYTHING happen in this country that William Raspberry can't see as "racist?" If so, I've not seen him write about it yet. Talk about a one-trick pony? That dumb bastard can find "racism" if a white dog shits in his yard.
Yeah, I'm gonna be cruel here, but the fact is that William Raspberry can't write his way out of a paper bag. If he weren't BLACK, no publisher would touch his ass with a ten-foot pole. He is the PERFECT example of Affirmative Action. When he attempts to be "witty," he gets it half-right, but that's good enough for a token jelly bean in our politically-correct world.
As far as a writer goes, the man purely sucks.
But there's another one out there a lot worse than he is. That's the shrill bitch molly Ivans. Bejus on a bicycle! That woman is a screaming, dingbat leftist who displays ALL the characteristics of the screeching left while denying that she does it.
George Bush is elected President. Molly doesn't like that fact, so she resorts to the leftist mentality of rock-throwing and insult by calling our President "Shrub." My, my. Wasn't she CLEVER with that?
Molly is always "clever," in her own narrow mind. I'd like to buy her for what she's actually worth and sell her for what she THINKS she's worth. I could make a fortune.
Since my name is Molly Ivins and I speak for myself, I'll tell you exactly why I opposed invading Iraq: because I thought it would be bad for this country, our country, my country. I opposed the invasion out of patriotism, and that is the reason I continue to oppose it today -- I think it is bad for us. I think it has done nothing but harm to the United States of America. I think we have created more terrorists than we faced to start with and that our good name has been sullied all over the world. I think we have alienated our allies and have killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did.
"Killed more Iraqis than Saddam Hussein ever did." That's what I really LOVE about leftists. Facts just don't matter to them. If the statement "feels good," it must be correct. It fits perfectly with their delusions, so THAT becomes the "truth," no matter how false it is.
Molly Ivans is a blithering idiot.
at least you dont have to deal with the likes of maurie coco, leftist bitch..
Gee, where have I heard "blithering idiot" before? Um, Raspberry sounds like an alias. What media does he work for?
> Does ANYTHING happen in this country >that William Raspberry can't see as "racist?"
He ranks second only to the late, un-lamented Carl Rowan in seeing the world thru the Alice In Wonderland definition of "racism". As if that word actually means anything more than what the writer intends it to mean at the time. If Raspberry was white, his columns would be thrown in the trash as crank letters.
Molly Ivans? Dont make me puke. She is a fellow Texan, yeah...but that is about the only point she has in her favor. Admittedly, she writes well and is, as you say, "clever"...but as the famed novelist Herman Wouk once noted in another contest...there are some people who are too clever to ever be wise. ...
I just got to thinking...there is a fine line between being clever and a smartass....arrogant simplicity is what she is famous for....
You'll like this one, Rob.
Around ten years ago, Ivins wrote a column full of mea culpa about the fact she was a smoker, being very deferential to the tobacco tyrants, acquiescing in the punitive taxation that so many contemporary Americans think is appropriate to a supposedly free people. She concluded with a demand for respect.
Clueless woman, statists never respect their victims. Everyone who buys into the big government kool-aid is painting a target on their butt. And asking for it!
The local fish wrap had Ivins' column when I moved here early 80's. Her one trick then was the Reagan deficits. Every single column was the same. Even mid-80's, it was obvious Reagan had sealed USSR's doom with his arms race, but Ivins and her ilk never caught on......not to this day.
Molly Ivans hates Bush so much because she still has'nt gotten over him beating her drunken lesbian lover Ann Richards.
Raspberry is pretty bad, but I'd give the Affirmative Action award to Jason Blair.
Ivins is as you say, classic leftist. She says she will tell you why she opposes it, and then says because it will be bad for the country. How? She does NOT say why she opposes it; because "bad for the country" is not an answer unless you explain why. Classic leftist stuff, of course.
Just ranting a little here; I get so tired of this leftist "clear" thinking.
Molly Ivins would bitch slap you all over Texas Acidbrain. By the way, why don't you prove her wrong on that assessment. You need to get your head our of your ass and face the REAL facts. Seems like most Americans already have. This war was unnecessary and wasn't worth the cost all the way around.
Ah, Troll Alert! Troll Alert!
See? Classic moonbat reply. Just opinions, and absolutely nothing else.
To be credible, you need to "explain" your statements. So, here we have:
1. "You need to get your head out of your ass and face the REAL facts." OK, What ARE the real facts?
2. "Seems like most Americans already have." OK, WHICH Americans, and what source do you have for "most?" In other words, HOW do you know most Americans already have?
3. This war was uncessary..." OK, explain WHY it wasn't necessary.
4. "..and wasn't worth the cost all the way around." OK, that kind of contradicts the first part of your statement (#3 above). But I'll let that go. WHY wasn't it worth the cost all the way around? What would have made it worth the cost? What are the other "ways around?"
See, you have no credibility until you give a reasoned explanation and hopefully give sources for your facts.
1. More innocent Iraqi's have been killed since we invaded Iraq than during the period in which Saddam ordered the execution of Kurdish rebels during the Iran-Iraq war.
2. Pick a poll. The majority of Americans now believe the Iraq war has not been worth the cost in our brave soldiers lives lost or the amount of taxpayer dollars spent to overthrow a dictator that posed NO threat to America. Hell, the Iraqi's can't even defend their own country, much less attack ours... and we should have considered them a real threat? The current insurgency in Iraq is made up of mostly foreign fighters coming from other countries to fight American occupation. NOW, Iraq is a new breeding ground for terrorists, whereas we could have continued to focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we could have most likely caught Usama bin Laden by now. For those of you who have forgotten, he is the one who attacked us on 9/11 contrary to recent White House propaganda.
3. See #2 above.
4. The cost of this war so far is 1,746 dead and over 10,000 wounded brave American soldiers. It has cost American taxpayers over $300 billion dollars SO FAR and for what? Saddam NEVER attacked us or posed any type of threat to us and we had his sorry ass contained even if he did. Now that Bush has attacked Iraq preemptively, more Islamic fundamentalists have heeded the call to join the jihad against us and the number of terrorists have only grown. With our military bogged down in Iraq, we cannot face other REAL WMD THREATS posed to us such as Iran and North Korea. Iraq was a major blunder strategically.
Any other questions Norm?
Well, you did a better job in your 2nd post.
I didn't have any "other" questions to begin with; I was simply picking apart your post.
1. I don't know where you got your numbers, but why are you limiting Saddam's actions to the war? How about his entire reign of terror? If you don't want to include others he has had killed, why not?
2. Here's one poll link: http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/login.aspx?ci=17131 . I have never heard Pres. Bush ever deny that OBL is responsible for 911. Your statement confuses me. He's mentioned OBL over and over. He has made no bones of the strategy on terrorists. From "bring 'em on!" to the "fly paper" concept, right up to his speech last week where he said it's better to fight terrorists outside of our borders, than inside our borders. Saddam did have WMD's. We spotted and destroyed several mobile chemical labs. There were several convoys of russian trucks that crossed the border into Syria just as we began the war. I'd love for us to go into Syria and seek out whatever may be there. Our actions in Iraq have strengthened our hand in Saudi Arabia. We are successfully pressuring the princes and sheiks to rid their country of jihadists, who have nowhere else to go these days other than into Iraq. Whether they want to or not. And we're ready for them. The numbers of terrorists are DROPPING in Iraq. Likewise, car bombing and IED attacks are dropping. I read a table showing their numbers a few weeks back, and now I can't find the link, so I can't prove it. But terrorist numbers are going down, not up.
I agree that Iran and NK are serious threats. I don't know what we're going to do about NK. However, just this week, the US and India jointly announced a mutual defens/aid pac that is a huge bombhsell, and a real plus for both countries. And in that respect, it direclty impacts Pakistan. As far as Iran goes, I am hoping something happens there soon, but can't give any proof, either.
This link: http://www.fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/ provides incredible perspectives on everything from Iraq and military operations there, to NK, Iran, and the Philipines. Good reading, but you ought to start at least 6 months back. Then there is: http://www.command-post.org/ and a subscription site: http://www.geostrategy-direct.com/geostrategy%2Ddirect/
If you're just "unclear on the concept" in general, read a few essays here: http://www.ejectejecteject.com He is a lot better writer than I am; I'm no writer at all, in fact!
"I have never heard Pres. Bush ever deny that OBL is responsible for 911."
Bush and his merry band of spinsters have repeatedly tried to muddy the waters with indirect references of Saddam having been connected to the 9/11 attacks. Stoking Americans memory and anger about 9/11 in his speeches helps him rally more support in trying to justify his Iraq mistakes today. That is why he used 5 references to 9/11 in his recent speech.
"He has made no bones of the strategy on terrorists. From "bring 'em on!" to the "fly paper" concept, right up to his speech last week where he said it's better to fight terrorists outside of our borders, than inside our borders."
Why didn't he use this "fly paper" concept in Afghanistan and keep the fight there, instead of causing terrorists to increasingly scatter out to other countries such as Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and others? And now that pre-emptively attacking and occupying a muslim nation that did nothing to attack us has created a worldwide backlash and generated a jihadist movement, the number of terrorists will only continue to grow and regenerate. We will be spent into oblivion over many years before we ever eradicate all the terrorists and create a stable middle east. In the end, Iraq will have made things much worse, not better for the safety of Americans in the future.
"Saddam did have WMD's. We spotted and destroyed several mobile chemical labs."
These are the same mobile labs that Colin Powell testified about in front of the U.N. assembly. They have now been verified to have been used for hydrogen production and proved to have no connection to a weapons program. Even Colin Powell has now admitted to have been given erroneous information on WMD intelligence regarding Iraqs weapons programs. The CIA has now stated that there was essentially NO NEW intelligence on Iraq after 1998.
"I don't know what we're going to do about NK."
We are not going to do anything about North Korea Norm, because Bush has already blown that opportunity with his childish lack of diplomacy. He has further alienated them with his irresponsible rhetoric and we now will have to accept the fact that they are or soon will be a nuclear power. Our military is stretched far too thin to even consider an engagement with the North Koreans.
Thats the nuts and bolts of it.
Fuck you pj
Maybe you should go give kenedy a blow
Back at you Murry...you clever little worm you.
Maybe you should give spellcheck a go.